What's Huck's tipping point?

Ok, we know he's a nutcase. Now we just wait for the rest of the country to realize it, hopefully not the day after the election.

Rod, I share your mix of feelings concerning Huckabee. I agree that the time may be ripe for a true populist (culturally conservative, but progressive on lunchbucket issues for the middle and working classes). On the surface, Huck seems to be that kind of guy. But even to a cultural conservative like me, some of his comments on hotbutton issues seem way over the top (and just plain stupid from a political perspective). And even though some have said Huck has a good environmental record, my web research indicates just the opposite. Example: he explicitly touts coal and nuclear power. No one who is familiar with those energy sources would promote them. I used to represent a farmer/rancher coalition in Montana that was fighting coal strip mines and coal-fired power plants. Coal is an inherently air-fouling,land-abusing source of energy. That's why the conservative farmers and ranchers of eastern Montana have fought it so hard for the past 30 years. I wish there were a true heir apparent to William Jennings Bryan on the scene these days. A genuine populist would advocate Judeo-Christian values in a winsome manner while at the same time embracing a grassroots version of the environmental message.

Huckabee won't win or get the nomination. Best-case scenario for conservatives: Rudy is nominated and beaten in the general election, thoroughly discrediting the "war is all there is" wing of the party (along with the idea that social-conservatives should be marginalized).

Hopefully, his ideas set the stage for the shift in conservatism some of us on this blog hope for--social conservatism that sees that economic matters are often more prudential than ideological.

I am disappointed with what Huckabee said in that book. It sunk Santorum (that was when his polls really started going down), and it may do the same for Huckabee.

"Huckabee won't win or get the nomination. Best-case scenario for conservatives: Rudy is nominated and beaten in the general election, thoroughly discrediting the "war is all there is" wing of the party (along with the idea that social-conservatives should be marginalized)."

Unfortunately, Don is right. It's going to be a very ugly 4-8 years with Hillary in office. A darn sight prettier than a Rudy presidency, though.

So what to do about a culture that breeds kid killers?

Give everyone a gun. What else?

There is a certain point buried in there, namely that any breaking of a cultural pattern or taboo opens the way for other changes that are worse---though I would say that is true even for cultural patterns that really should be broken, like slavery or racism, for example. But obviously, yeah, equating homosexuality and necrophilia? Kinda a stretch there. Though there probably is a tiny group of weirdoes meeting in someone's basement who call themselves the Necrophiliac Anti-Defamation League. And Mr. Corns is wrong---there already is a NAMBLA.

But I think Rod has a good point about Huckabee; I was thinking of myself as a Huckabee supporter for a while, but when I look closer at him there's more and more that kind of makes me wonder. I may still vote for him, but I don't know. Sigh...I keep changing candidates every couple weeks. I'm starting to think every one of them is bad.

God bless.

"he explicitly touts coal and nuclear power. No one who is familiar with those energy sources would promote them. "

Well James Lovelock fatther of the Gaia hypothesis, and Stewart Brand creator of the Whole Earth Catalog and Coevolution Quarterly disagree with that sentiment regarding Nuclear power. Also, one of the founders of Greenpeace (don't have the name at my fingertips) has come around on nuclear.

"You seem to have forgotten that dead people cannot give consent. That's pretty conveeenient."

Hey, they can sing a living will before they go to Oregon for some assisted suicide, all to show love to the necro lover.

Actually, I think there was a case like this in Germany last year. I think it was more about cannabalism than necrophelia, but hey, who are we to descriminate?

David Layman: "Certainly if one can remove the millennia-long sanctions against homosexuality, then one also remove the sanctions against necrophilia. In other words, if one can remove the moral intuitions that sanction homosexuality, then one can just as easily remove the moral intuitions that sanction necrophilia."
First of all,...um, wow.

Throw a rock and you'll hit dozens of civilizations throughout history that have publically condemned homosexuality. Fine, I agree with that. However, homosexuality has been a part of normal human existence since the beginning of, well, human existence. It was not created by a decadent culture. Thankfully, a more enlightened hetrosexual America is viewing our homosexual brothers and sisters as people who deserve the full legal rights and priveleges that come with being an American citizen. This may cause dismay to folks like you and Rod and Rod's friend ("who's no supporter of gay rights"), but ours will be a better country when we treat all of our citizens with equality.

On the other hand, I cannot think of a single culture that has condoned necrophilia. I cannot even think of a significant "underground" movement or sub-culture that condoned necrophilia. If most civilizations (major and minor) have one thing in common, it is a respect for the dead, and they have created elaborate and solemn rituals to show this respect.

"If most civilizations (major and minor) have one thing in common, it is a respect for the dead, and they have created elaborate and solemn rituals to show this respect. "

Well I think we've been doing a pretty good job of overturning that traditional respect with the "Bodyworlds" exhibits.

SV Steve-

Come on. Those folks signed release forms and knew exactly what the exhibit was about. What they did was no different than people who donate their bodies to science.

"Bodyworlds" is a magnificent exhibit, and a true appreciation of the wonder of the human body.

Matt:

"However, homosexuality has been a part of normal human existence since the beginning of, well, human existence. It was not created by a decadent culture."

I'm grading tests--how did I get drawn into this :-).

No.

How do you define "normal"?

I am aware of many cultures where men and women engaged in same-sex genital relations. I am not aware of any where it was accepted as "normal". There was always a element of disapprobation, isolation, or social redefinition that placed the sub-community of those who had same-sex genital relations outside the umbrella of typical sexuality and family relations.

Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all regard it as contrary to their moral standards. Ancient Greece, as we all know, permitted it for adult males, but regarded the penetrated male as literally abominable--a thing contrary to normal human behavior.

Ironically, the Greek view was the exact opposite of ours: they approved of same-sex relations between adult men and underage boys, and disapproved of same-sex relations between two adult males.

The language of "consent," and the notion of a stable "homosexual" identity are modern social constructions, created precisely to authorize what no society has every authorized as NORMAL behavior.

(Buddhism and Hinduism reject the western concept of "self" on which the notion of a stable "homosexual" identity depends; that same concept was refuted by Hume; Kant tried to put it make together, but not in a way that saves the concept of a stable identity.)

And I, a southerner, am tired of being mentioned in the same breath as whores, wife beaters, and gang rapists...:)

As usual, the voice of reason is forgotten instantly, while the conversation fixates on bizarre political/sexual overstatements.

It's worth repeating what Bill said:

"And even though some have said Huck has a good environmental record, my web research indicates just the opposite. Example: he explicitly touts coal and nuclear power. No one who is familiar with those energy sources would promote them. I used to represent a farmer/rancher coalition in Montana that was fighting coal strip mines and coal-fired power plants. Coal is an inherently air-fouling, land-abusing source of energy."

Bill doesn't even mention the climatological aspect of coal, which is that we have little or no chance of avoiding disaster if we build lots more coal plants.

Jim, I think you're making too much of it. Most anti-gay activists see homosexuality as deviency. It gets included on any list of deviencies much the way if I'm running for mayor and I say, "because of the mayor's poor governence the people of this city are suffering as never before; from filthy parks to drug dealers on the corner to graffiti to murder and rape, life in this city is worse than it's ever been."

That doesn't mean that I'd be comparing or equating litter in the park with being raped and murdered. It's just part of a list of criminal behaviors. Likewise, I have never heard or met a anti-gay activist who was actually trying to create equivelencies between homosexuality and say, beastiality. Their point is pretty much always that these are behaviors which are deviencies (according to them) while not intending to create equivelencies between them.

Although I can see where getting including in a list with necrophilia and pedophilia would get old. But hey, at least you have company with the s&m folks!

Really, if you can swallow your revulsion long enough to actually pay attention to some one like James Dobson (as opposed to Freed Phlps who has literally 3 followers who aren't related to him), it is quite clear that their problem with homosexuality isn't that it is just so extremely devient that no sane person could conceive of a world where gay people aren't locked up or killed.

They aren't saying, "no one would accept necrophilia as normal, so why should we accept homosexuality which is just as bad as normal." What they are saying is, "if we breach this boundary, which people want you to think is reasonable and fairly harmless, then you can be sure that these other boundaries which are not so reasonable and harmless will go next."

This may seem ridiculous, but look at how things played out with a variety of other issues which conservatives were in a tizzy over back in the day: the acceptance of single parenthood, unilateral divorces, the denigration of the roles women traditionally held, the elevation of money making and self-fulfillment above family and self-sacrifice, the seperation of sex from marriage, etc. In each of these cases conservatives said, "if you do this, then x,y and z will follow." And liberals insisted that they were being ridiculous. Yet today, we live with x, y and z.

Just as an example of how conservatives see these issues and how they have been more right than wrong, look at Phyllis Schafly. The woman was obviously odd, but she predicted back in the seventies that in the future homosexuals would demand to be married. Back then EVERYONE, including gays insisted that this was completely ridiculous, alarmist, unreasonable and without merit. But she was right. She understood that what was happening with the feminist movement was a concerted effort to make men and women interchangeable. Once the uniqueness and differences of men and women which had been at the core of any understanding of marriage were eliminated, then there would be no difference between a man and a woman getting married or a man and a man getting married. And isn't this exactly where we are today?

For someone like James Dobson (to use and example I'm actually somewhat familiar with), he sees this continuum at work. If we accept gay marriage, then we are giving final, formal approval to the idea that men and women are interchangable, that the desires and rights of adults supercede the rights of children, that traditional families will not be accepted as necessary or preferable to other arrangements.

He is also arguing that by knocking down this barrier, we are providing the model and ammunition needed to knock down other, more destructive barriers. This is where the arguments like the one Huckabee made get brought in - to warn of this "slippery slope".

And he's not just pulling this stuff out of thin air, either. Polygamists are already making arguements for the legalization of polygamy based on pretty much the same ideas as the gay marriage movement has been using. A couple of years ago a prominent group of social scientist, gay rights advocates and scholars put out a manifesto called "beyond gay marriage" which explicately called for the acceptance of a wide variety of relational and parenting arrangements, including gay couples sharing children with each other as being equal to traditional families. In Europe where civil unions and such have been legalized we are already seeing all sorts of legally sanctioned arrangements such as plural marriages, kids with three legal moms and such.

Even if we are completely comfortable with the idea of gay marriage, the idea that accepting gay marriage could open the flood gates to all sorts of other currently proscribed and even unthinkable things ought to give us pause.

Anyhow, I can see where you're coming from, but I think you're reading into Huckabee's (and other, similar) comments the wrong way.

Now I have a question for you as a gay man (which I will not be upset with you at all if you don't answer - it's kind of a loaded question). If you were absolutely convinced that legalizing gay marriage would inevitably open the door to far more destructive things, like the dissolution of anything resembling normal families for kids to grow up in, polygamy and group marriage and even the acceptence of really gross sexual deviencies like beastiality and such, would you be willing to forgo the right to legal, widely accepted gay marriage? My point isn't to argue right now over whether gay marriage actually would open the floodgates to a brave new world of familiy destruction and weirdness, but more of a thought exercise about what our response should be if we were able to know that there was a terrible outcome ahead. IOW, would you be willing to forgo your own personal satisfaction and fulfillment for a larger benefit to society? What sort of trade offs are we willing and should we be willing to make in the struggle between individual liberty and societal good?

Again, if you don't want to answer, I understand. It's a really loaded question. But a few days ago we had a conversation where I mentioned that I thought that part of the problem with how many of the societal changes which occured over the last 40 years or so was that there was no real discussion about the inevitable fall-out of the changes we were contemplating. I think that if we want to handle this issue responsibly, these are some of questions we need to ask and conversations we need to have.

I appreciate Rebeccat's point, which is more or less the same one that then-Sen. Rick Santorum crudely tried to make in that interview in which he compared hsexuality to bestiality. His point was that in the Lawrence decision, SCOTUS severed sexual conduct from any concept, however watery, of natural law, and made sexual morality entirely a matter of individual choice. Justice Scalia, in his scathing dissent, wrote that the decision theoretically invalidates all morals laws. Under the logic of Lawrence (which overturned anti-sodomy laws nationwide), prostitution, for example, involves a willing prostitute freely selling her services to a paying client, the government has no right to make the judgment that their transaction is immoral, and therefore should be illegal. Scalia pointed out that in our efforts to decriminalize one form of sexual behavior and expression (sodomy), we had crossed a dangerous theoretical threshhold in the law.

I believe he was right. I wanted to see the sodomy laws overturned too, but legislatively. (It's not because I believe hsexuality is a morally neutral condition; it's because I don't see that it's the government's business to regulate private consenting sexual conduct to that degree of intimacy; mine was not a theoretical judgment, but one of prudence; the particular case at hand in Lawrence involved a gay couple who were caught in flagrante inside a private home that the police had invaded for another reason, and whom were subsequently charged for what they'd been caught doing). Anyway, post-Lawrence, I fail to see how polygamists can be denied a right to legal sanction for their consenting arrangements.

I guess I would also argue, sticking with the "sick patient" paradigm, that of course there are multiple illnesses affecting this body, and perhaps we're still discerning what symptoms stem from which disease (or cure for that matter, if we can permit the idea the some changes will eventually work out for the good but have some painful upheaval along the way).

As I've said before, I think a compelling case can be made that much sexual sickness out there is from a culture of greed and selfishness that is all too willing to use sex in any possible way to sell product, partnered with a consumerist culture that is eager to be sold to. Giving women more roles and power in society may be a good change that happens to be coming at a bad time, and the harm some perceive to be coming from tinkering with gender roles is in fact arising from the greed/consumerist disease.

I really liked your answer, Jim. I have a slightly different take on the question. For those who suggest there would be harmful consequences to accepting homosexuals as equal to heterosexuals--because that's what this debate is really about, not just about marriage per se--I have a question of my own. What harmful consequences have already occurred, over the years, because homosexuals were treated as less than fully human, less than acceptable as human beings, and less deserving of the rights of an ordinary citizen? Look at the wasted lives, the ruined marriages, the suffering of children that has already happened. Do you really think it was such a great idea to preach that gay men and women could change their orientation and by "acting as if" somehow force themselves to feel different? Knowing some people whose parents were engaged in that type of "marriage," I have to say it doesn't seem so wonderful to me. To me, THAT is a mockery of marriage far worse than two men or two women getting married with their love for each other in the open light of day. Knowing men and women of an earlier era, who were forced into the closet, suffering fear and shame every day of their lives, I don't think that was a great solution either.

To listen to these people, it sounds as if everything would be okay if only gays and lesbians would be quiet and go away. But that really isn't true. EVERY choice has consequences. The old way had far-ranging consequences. It caused tremendous suffering. What made that suffering--pain that already happened, pain that is not hypothetical, but REAL--acceptable to you? Can you justify your choice of continuing it, the way you ask those who want change to justify themselves against the hypothetical problems that you project into the future?

It seems irrational to me to imagine that problems within heterosexual marriage are caused by anything but the participants themselves, and the heterosexually-oriented society within which those marriages take place. If you want to fix marriage, fix the people who get married. Deal with their hopes and fears and expectations of what marriage is supposed to be. I don't see how you can fix your own problems by focusing on someone else.

I would argue strenuously that a wonderful gift straight people could give themselves (forget gay people) is a society where they do not need to be worried about people thinking they are gay. Men could dare to cook, dance, garden, enjoy opera :-), dress to kill :-), tell a male friend how much he means to him (that one I will not smile at because I think male friendship suffers from the "gay fear"), and not have to hold so much back or bend over backwards to compensate. (Men who are more comfortable in their own skins and not so anxious about being "the man" will probably treat their wives a heck of a lot better too.)

Funny, I can do all that now. Well, I do not, in fact, garden, that's a good way to earn the equivalent of 25 cents an hour. And I don't cook, as I am lazy. (I am not 'crunchy', but I'm not a conservative either, so that works out.)

However, I volunteer at a local theatre that does a lot of musicals, and nothing says 'gay' quite like musical theatre. (This isn't that wrong a stereotype. All the gay men I've met in real life, as opposed to running across online, volunteer/work there, or they're dating someone there.)

I can do this because, as you postulated, I live in a society where I do not worry about people thinking I'm gay. They certainly can think that if they want, and possibly a few have, but I do not worry about it. (I personally suspect I read more as hippy/slacker than 'gay'.)

You might want to try moving here. It is more a mental move than any sort of physical one. It lets you do whatever things you want to do without worrying about how 'masculine' or 'feminine' they are.

Oh, and you want to know how to make children stop caring? Maybe if you stopped caring if people thought you were gay, you'd stop teaching them to care if people thought they were gay. Children do not exist in a vacuum.

sig, you didn't ask a question. You made a statement that this is really about "accepting homosexuals as equal to heterosexuals" and made the unqualified claim that it was this, and not marriage which was the real concern. That sort of statement is really and truely meant to say, "If you disagree with me, it will be assumed that your real problem isn't what you claim, but that you see homosexuals as less fully human." IOW Shut up! I do object to that. And I am sorry for provoking conflict over this. I'm rather tired of the conflict.

As for being equal, but not the same, well look at men and women. As a woman who grew up in the "gender is a social construct age", implying that I am a man with alternate genetalia infuriates me. I am not the same as a man and I despise the implication that I am. But, that in no way means that I am not equal to a man.

In my marriage, my husband and I are equals. But he spends his time doing work which makes money and I spend my time doing work that ensures the well being and quality training of our family and kids. Completely different. But equal in worth.

And I don't doubt for a minute that there are homosexuals for whom different opportunities cause pain. However, no matter what we do there is going to be pain for someone. If we open the door wide and families become even further destabilized as the extremists claim more and more ground and the settings for children to be raised in become less stable and beneficial for them, then the damage could be much worse than the relatively small number of homosexuals who would like to be married and can't.

But for either side to pretend that harm has not or will not come no matter what we end up doing is to willfully take up residency in la-la land.

David,

I fear a wire was crossed in what I wrote or how you read what I wrote. I'm certainly scratching my head trying to figure out what you are trying to tell me. Maybe it is quite clear to you, but it felt like an attack to me and I don't understand what I said to warrant the attack.

Jim

rebeccat, I see why you didn'† like my statement that arguments against marriage equality were really arguments against equality, period. And I hope you noticed that I took care to recognize your claim that you don'

Jim
I fear a wire was crossed in what I wrote or how you read what I wrote. I'm certainly scratching my head trying to figure out what you are trying to tell me. Maybe it is quite clear to you, but it felt like an attack to me and I don't understand what I said to warrant the attack.

I wasn't attacking you, I was simply taking issue with the idea that people 'have to' worry if others perceive them as gay. So, basically, I was agreeing with you, except stating 'Don't wait for society, what you care about is entirely in your control.'.

Max,

I said: ""You seem to have forgotten that dead people cannot give consent. That's pretty conveeenient."

You replied: "Hey, they can sing [sic] a living will ..."

Um, people have to be ALIVE to sign a living will. People who are alive are the only ones who can give consent. Thanx 4 proving my point. (Oh, and let's not forget that wills,living or otherwise, can be and often are contested or ignored. Gay people know this all too well - we learn it the hard way: from experience.)

Rebeccat,

"I have never heard or met a anti-gay activist who was actually trying to create equivelencies between homosexuality and say, beastiality."

I have. Many of them. Want names?

"They aren't saying, "no one would accept necrophilia as normal, so why should we accept homosexuality which is just as bad as normal." What they are saying is, "if we breach this boundary, which people want you to think is reasonable and fairly harmless, then you can be sure that these other boundaries which are not so reasonable and harmless will go next."

This may seem ridiculous"

Yes they ARE saying that. And no, it doesn't seem "ridiculous" to anyone who has had that false premise of "other boundaries" hurled at them. Treating homosexuals equally before the law IS both "reasonable and "harmless". There is harm in pedophila, and lack of consent in both pedophilia and necrophilia. There is NONE in my marriage.

"If we accept gay marriage, then we are giving final, formal approval to the idea that men and women are interchangable, that the desires and rights of adults supercede the rights of children"

Nonsense. Women are NOT interchangeable with men. If you interchanged a woman for the man who is my husband, I'd be really upset. And as for the rights of children, there aren't any in my marriage. Nor are there any in either of my sister's TWO heterosexual marriages. It ain't a requirement, nor is it the topic of this thread.

"Polygamists are already making arguements for the legalization of polygamy based on pretty much the same ideas as the gay marriage movement has been using."

This is simply not true. The ONLY argument ever made by gay couples is that the two people who society permits to marry not be limited by the gender/sex of either. I have NEVER heard an "argument" for polygamous marriages used in the gay marriage movement (and I've been a pretty big part of that movement). This is pure, absurd fantasy.

"the idea that accepting gay marriage could open the flood gates to all sorts of other currently proscribed and even unthinkable things"

...like, um, bestiality? necrophilia? Pedophilia? Sadomasochism? See, perpetuating the myth adds zero to its believability. It is only an attempt to raise the scare (or ick) factor.

rebeccat, you must have absolutely no idea how utterly offensive your question to a gay man is: "If you were absolutely convinced that legalizing gay marriage would inevitably open the door to far more destructive things, like the dissolution of anything resembling normal families for kids to grow up in, polygamy and group marriage and even the acceptence of really gross sexual deviencies like beastiality and such, would you be willing to forgo the right to legal, widely accepted gay marriage?"

First there is an absurd assumption that a gay man would be "absolutely convinced" that his marriage WOULD "inevitably open the door to far more destructive things". He probably wouldn't see his marriage AS a "destructive thing" at all, let alone a gateway to even "far more destructive things"!!!

Then you follow that insult with the equally absurd conclusion that our marriage will result in you "normal" folks' families being 'disolved'! Where do you come up with these nonsensical fantasies?

"My point isn't to argue right now over whether gay marriage actually would open the floodgates to a brave new world of familiy destruction and weirdness"

It isn't? It sure comes across that way.

And then to ask him if he would give up his right to equal treatment before the law? What on earth makes you think we would? It's supposed to be guaranteed by the Constitution.

You try to couch it in terms of "forgo[ing] your own personal satisfaction and fulfillment" (What? Aren't WE entitled to the pursuit of happiness anymore? When did THAT become a heterosexual privilege?) and call it "a larger benefit to society". Sorry I see no benefit in treating gay citizens as lesser citizens. Perhaps you could explain how society is better off when that happens.

True dat x 2. But liberals weren't the only ones attacking Huck for that ad.

'Weren't the only ones'? Were they attacking Huckabee at all for the ad? As many people may be aware, I am somewhat on the left, and I only read this and few other conservative blogs...most of what I read is on the left. None of the major players that I read have attacked the ad. Of course, I'm not some sort of blog deity, for all I know I'm just missing all it.

But the three people talking about this, the only places I've read anything about this, are here, John Cole, and Sullivan, all of which are on the right (to some, rather disgruntled, extent) and all of which are simply commenting at the fact the right is attacking Huckabee, as it's confirming exactly what they think about the relationship of the GOP toward Christianity...the GOP is just using it to get elected.

No one on the left seems to be talking about it at all, except to link to those guys. kos, one of the few who has, was rather sarcastic about the attacks ago: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/19/25747/037

If you don't mean bloggers, OTOH, the only attacks I've heard about were from Peggy Noonan, Ron Paul, and Bill Donahue, none of which are exactly card-carrying members of the left.

ScurvyOaks
"I'm not sure why we are somehow obliged to vote for a liberal just because he really, really, really believes in Jesus."

Sorta odd that the only person who's apparently letting his Christian faith guide his political beliefs has decided that, inexplicably, social services aren't all bad, and that the Bible doesn't say anything about lowering taxes or invading countries.

Wait, not 'odd'...'expected', that's the word I meant.